I finally had time to read the proposal. I offer a bit of recapitulation, reactions and questions. I apologize if this has already been discussed at length here or in other fora; I have not looked too deep into the discussion boards.

1. A main argument against increasing block size is that it would make it more resource-intensive to run a full node, promoting centralization of the network.

2. The solution to this problem is to pay those running full nodes, via transaction fees. This forever eliminates the need for artificially capping blocks. It also promotes network decentralization, as nodes would not be run altruistically but for a small profit, or at least not a loss.

3. Under the proposal end users pay TX fees to not just miners, but also to relay nodes. Fees due per TX could be efficiently and automatically figured out by the network. This would probably entail a net increase in fees/TX. However, under the present capped block size solution, every time we approach the artificial block size limit, TX fees tend to increase significantly as users pay more in order to get their transactions in a block. The proposal would smooth such fee fluctuations out for good.

4. Since the proposed change in the basic parameters of the network is nontrivial, it would seem that the realistic strategy is to buy time with a block size increase to 20 MB, then implement payments to nodes. Would the latter also require a hard fork, or can it be done via a soft fork?

5. For some players in the space there is an incentive for blocks to remain capped, which puts upward pressure on fees, which promotes transactions to go off-chain. It is to be expected such players will resist the present proposal.

6. It is therefore not to be expected that the proposal will be simply picked up and implemented; any development will need to be funded.

The trick is not to panic about "how the market could possibly handle it without central planning." No one is smart enough to figure out all the little rules and stipulations for each economic relationship, let alone do so in advance, let alone get consensus on such rules. Just remove the cap and let the market work. Babying the market with paternalism in the form of artificial scarcity just leaves the space open for competitors to stick their oars in.

Well said.

You (rocks), justusranvier, the guy you quoted (not going to try to type zangle....), and a few others are, in my opinion, some of the smarter guys on this forum. Thanks for sticking around. Sorry for not thanking you sooner. Please don't leave us. Just because mindless trolls and zombies are grunting and bumping into each other does not mean it is time to leave. I am not a conspiracy person but have wondered if some of the trolls are not hired shills... There IS a lot at stake here.

Free markets work. In this situation where we have few to none of the categorized market weaknesses (negative externalities, pop culture, public goods) freeing the market while minding incentives in the structure of the system is best. Nodes, at this point, seem to be victim to the public good weakness but everything else is flawless. I run a full node as well as some miners (at a loss and since 2010) because I am altruistic in spite of my admiration for "Atlas Shrugged." We just can't expect everyone else to get gushy over my love of humanity and the beauty of this bloodless revolution so incentives need to be in place for the brightest future. Invisible hand (Adam Smith) only works when it is invisible.

The rationale for a Max Block Size has almost nothing to do with transaction fees, or free market activity.It has a lot more to do with security and reliability.The free market doesn't provide this.

Right. You are another smart non-troll that I have respected for years. It is not an easy read but justusranvier's latest blog post is what I see to be a sound long-term and comprehensive blueprint that solves these issues without the need for a nanny or central planning. Implementing his ideas is no small task. However, if we were to do it, we would have something that could solve the major deficiencies. Bitcoin appeared out of the blue for most of us. That was a miracle. Now we have a few identifiable problems/bugs to address and a smart crowd looking at them. I think it will turn out well. Wish I were more smart.

5. For some players in the space there is an incentive for blocks to remain capped, which puts upward pressure on fees, which promotes transactions to go off-chain. It is to be expected such players will resist the present proposal.

6. It is therefore not to be expected that the proposal will be simply picked up and implemented; any development will need to be funded.

So many people, especially those with ties to the USA, have a vest interest in pushing transactions off-chain.

Certainly there would be a lot of people who would be happier if regular people had to perform most of their transactions through third parties that would either compromise their privacy, or their security, or both.

Token MoneyA means of payment whose value of purchasing power as money greatly exceeds its cost of production of value in uses other than as money.

...UK. *reads again* Righto... Derrida couldn't 'a said it clearer.Anyhow, doesn't seem like any of the experts agree, and it's safe to assume Mr. 82.70.142.134, the wikipedo who penned your learned quote, is a typical self-appointed expert.

But wait! We're still mucking about with the "token" part of "A token with inherent utility." Imagine how much fun we'll have when we define the latter, and mate the two in an insestuous coupling of wisdom?! Stay tuned, culture lovers & international finance enthusiast!

Your rambling is irrelevant to the fact that its a token with utility vs one with not.. Market had no choice now it does.. Put out or getout

I have pretty close to zero interest in gold "vaulted in professional Swiss vaults."

OTOH, what I always have looked forward to is a solution where I could turn in KR's in one country then retrieve them in another. Perhaps just a network of jewelers endorsed by and using tools done by some entity. Bitcoin would be much more cheap and reliable than mainstream international settlements for operations such as this. I'm a bit surprised that nothing like this has popped up. Maybe it has but I'm just not aware of it.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.

Anyone can start a Newbie account anytime and post with a different name for free.

Thank you for your donation. I love the forum. And thank you for your sane posts. I always look forward to them

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.